Why I do not accept evolution part one

[pitabread]

We have agreed all along that there are obvious differences in how abacuses, computers, DNA and slide rulers physically perform information processing

Have we? I mean, earlier in this thread you described parity bit checking in computers and then said:

Am I talking about software engineering or DNA?

I don't know either, both apply- no analogy, no equivocation, no deception, just a definitive description of the exact same process.

Shall I take your above comment to mean you now agree that parity bit checking in computers is *not* the exact same process as what occurs in DNA?

The point was about the actual patterns seen in the information processing itself- such processes might exist purely in your head before committing them to code in a computer- the logical patterns remain.

Do they? I suspect we may be heading down another equivocation rabbit-hole, this time involving the term "pattern".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you will have no trouble presenting the logical patterns involved and showing the one-to-one match for both computers and DNA. I look forward to being educated.

a hierarchical digital information system utilizing a symbolic code convention

c'mon give me a tricky one!

 

[pitabread]

a hierarchical digital information system utilizing a symbolic code convention

c'mon give me a tricky one!

DNA doesn't use symbolic codes though. There is no symbolic representation in DNA strands.

(And I'm sure this is going to prompt another Google-fu analogy copy-paste, but if you want to discuss what DNA literally is and how the chemistry works, it will become quickly apparent why one cannot treat it as a literal equivalent of computer code, language, etc.

Ignoring the biology is not helping your arguments here.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Have we? I mean, earlier in this thread you described parity bit checking in computers and then said:



Shall I take your above comment to mean you now agree that parity bit checking in computers is *not* the exact same process as what occurs in DNA?



Do they? I suspect we may be heading down another equivocation rabbit-hole, this time involving the term "pattern".

same logical digital information error checking strategy

again the medium could be potatoes, you could lay out potatoes to represent digital informational and record a parity bit (using potatoes) to check for copying errors- then we could endlessly argue that potatoes are nothing like computers and miss the point entirely...

 

[pitabread]

same logical digital information error checking strategy

But it's not the same. Yes, DNA performs error-checking, but it's a fundamentally different process entirely.

You're once again resorting to equivocation.

 

[Speedwell]

exactly-'randomly distributed' - is the part which defines Darwinism from other theories

Lamarckism acknowledges natural selection processes also, as does ID, but not 'complete fluke' being responsible for actually providing something to select!

Superior designs will tend to outperform, outlast, and be reproduced in greater numbers than inferior ones- nobody is debating this

It is precisely why we see more Ford Mustangs on the Road than Ford Pintos- it says nothing about them spontaneously appearing by random errors!

I'm not sure what you mean by "spontaneously appearing."

Each new generation of a population presents to the environment a range of variants for selection. If the variations of a trait are plotted, they form a bell curve, what mathematicians call a "random distribution." That is what Darwin observed, and that is why he called his theory "the theory of evolution by random variation and natural selection." (Rather than "the theory of evolution by the spontaneous appearance of variants and natural selection.")

 

[Ophiolite]

a hierarchical digital information system utilizing a symbolic code convention

c'mon give me a tricky one!

Being deliberately obtuse may be considered a provocative act designed to create an adverse response. Please do not do that again.

Provide the specific patterns involved, not a hand waving, word-salad, generalist, qualitative excuse for an answer. If you cannot do so, just say so and we can then agree that your assertions have no foundation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

DNA doesn't use symbolic codes though. There is no symbolic representation in DNA strands.

“The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code with four symbols.
— Richard Dawkins

it does

It represents a symbolic code because the organic molecules themselves are not directly responsible for biological forms created, they represent a code which must be interpreted by the symbolic code convention- just as these words do not directly convey meaning to you without your prior knowledge of the symbolic code convention we are using.

Even simpler example:

if I shook your hand, you feel your hand move- this cause and effect itself does not involve a code
The code comes into play if you take this as a sign of friendship - though another culture might take it as an insult if it operates on a different symbolic code convention

you see the distinction?

 

[pitabread]

“The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code with four symbols.
— Richard Dawkins

it does

It represents a symbolic code because the organic molecules themselves are not directly responsible for biological forms created, they represent a code which must be interpreted by the symbolic code convention- just as these words do not directly convey meaning to you without your prior knowledge of the symbolic code convention we are using.

Even simpler example:

if I shook your hand, you feel your hand move- this cause and effect itself does not involve a code
The code comes into play if you take this as a sign of friendship - though another culture might take it as an insult if it operates on a different symbolic code convention

you see the distinction?

DNA is not interpreted though; and certainly not in the context of "hand shake" example.

Do you want to take another stab at it and this time talk about the biochemistry processes of DNA transcription and translation?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Being deliberately obtuse may be considered a provocative act designed to create an adverse response. Please do not do that again.

Provide the specific patterns involved, not a hand waving, word-salad, generalist, qualitative excuse for an answer. If you cannot do so, just say so and we can then agree that your assertions have no foundation.

sorry if I touched a nerve, but a hierarchical digital information system utilizing a symbolic code convention.. is an extremely specific pattern of information

e.g. it's not something you would expect to achieve throwing rocks in the air-
you might get a face, a letter, a heart even, but almost definitely not a hierarchical digital information system utilizing a symbolic code convention- that is a specifically structured pattern of information,

even programming a computer, it is going to take you some work to originate a novel version of this system.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

DNA is not interpreted though; and certainly not in the context of "hand shake" example.

Do you want to take another stab at it and this time talk about the biochemistry processes of DNA transcription and translation?

same principle yes, different medium

 

[pitabread]

sorry if I touched a nerve, but a hierarchical digital information system utilizing a symbolic code convention.. is an extremely specific pattern of information

How does DNA function? What do you think it actually does?

No analogies; no copy-pastes from Google. Just try talking about the biochemistry involved.

 

[pitabread]

same principle yes, different medium

It's not the same principle though. Your hand-shake example was about communication. That's isn't the function of DNA.

Try again; talk about the biochemistry. How does DNA work?

 

[Speedwell]

It's not the same principle though. Your hand-shake example was about communication. That's isn't the function of DNA.

Try again; talk about the biochemistry. How does DNA work?

Even explaining this "symbolic code" business in terms of a simpler chemical reaction would be a good start.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How does DNA function? What do you think it actually goes?

No analogies; no copy-pastes from Google. Just try talking about the biochemistry involved.

Again it functions by virtue of using a symbolic code convention using a quaternary digital code-
this is an accurate description, not an analogy

The 4 characters in DNA's quaternary digital code are represented by organic molecules- we use the labels ACGT - but of course that is OUR code convention, DNA uses it's own which it defines using biochemistry.

Beyond this we get into talking about how biochemistry performs operations like translation/interpretation/copying/error checking that computers do with - yes- very different physical/chemical processes,

My point once again, was not the physic medium by which those operations are performed are similar, but that the information systems themselves bear many striking similarities, as Dawkins agrees- and he is not exactly batting for ID! it's just an objective observation

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Origins of DNA is the most confounding question facing origin of life studies- even given that, accounting for the diversity in the biosphere through pure random error- is entirely speculative.

The origins of DNA are not clear, but we know how it accumulates information.

ideally, of course, we can all respect that principle

Meanwhile back in reality:

“Science advances one funeral at a time.”

'A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it'.Max Planck

That was hyperbole referring more to a conservative tendency of certain 'elder statesmen' of science who had already made their discoveries and gained their rewards, not to the majority of working scientists.

 

[pitabread]

DNA uses it's own which it defines using biochemistry.

And that is?

Beyond this we get into talking about how biochemistry performs operations like translation/interpretation/copying/error checking that computers do with - yes- very different physical/chemical processes,

Quit stalling. Describe those processes.

My point once again, was not the physic medium by which those operations are performed are similar, but that the information systems themselves bear many striking similarities,

You haven't just claimed they bear similarities. You've tried to argue they are the same thing. It seems to be the entire crux of your argument.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My point once again, was not the physic medium by which those operations are performed are similar, but that the information systems themselves bear many striking similarities, as Dawkins agrees- and he is not exactly batting for ID! it's just an objective observation

Having had a career in both biology and software development, I can assure you they similar only to the extent that they use both use an encoding scheme with transcription. Both tend to use modularity and, to some extent, a hierarchical architecture, but they do it very differently.

 

[Ophiolite]

sorry if I touched a nerve, but a hierarchical digital information system utilizing a symbolic code convention.. is an extremely specific pattern of information

I want you to demonstrate that this applies to DNA by providing a detailed, step by step, walk through the process of the formation of a protein, but at the very least the transcription stage, matching that process to an equivalent one in computer code. I am asking for Chapter, Verse, Sentence, Letter. Not a one paragraph review in weekly newspaper!
I don't think you can do it for two reasons:

1. It is not possible.
2. You lack the knowledge of the process or of computer coding or both to even attempt it.

On point 2, if you do have that knowledge why have you fobbed me off with trite vocabulary?

And yes, you touched a nerve. I don't appreciate being strung along by intransigent obtuseness on your part. I have given you repeated opportunities to support your case and you come up with replies that treat me like an idiot. Enough already.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And that is?



Quit stalling. Describe those processes.



You haven't just claimed they bear similarities. You've tried to argue they are the same thing. It seems to be the entire crux of your argument.

yes both are hierarchical digital information systems using symbolic code conventions
and of course error checking strategies etc go a little further- but you don't have to, this IS already an extremely specific organization of information into a system-
And clearly not what you get mixing random chemicals in a test tube all day long

Of course the biochemistry is astounding, the 'physical' processes DO ALSO bear similarities to CADCAM factories - specific nanomachines used to physically transport materials around biochemical factories-

I think this certainly supports design also- but it is an entirely different point

We could get into advanced hardware electronics also- but it would likewise have nothing to do with the actual software (information) system architecture- as a programmer - I don't have to know much about electronics, I probably know more about small engines-

talking of which, I have to get my snowblower running for the storm tomorrow!